During IFSEC International 2013 I had the privilege to be invited to the IFSEC Academy to be part of a panel discussion on the Draft Communications Data Bill — commonly nicknamed “Snooper’s Charter” — along with Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch.
Now at that point in time, another Nick — of the Clegg family — had told his radio listeners that he would not support the bill. Nor was it included in the Queen’s Speech by the coalition government.
So when we were discussing the issue at IFSEC I did ask the question: “Where exactly is it now?” I hadn’t seen any official announcement of the removal of the bill (either through the UK Parliament or through what seems to be Nick Clegg’s alternative communications channel — his radio show, which I have to admit to not receiving in Glasgow), so is it really gone?
Nick Pickles of Big Brother Watch said that it was dead. Absolutely dead. Not being in the know of the workings of these kinds of things, I asked him whether it didn’t need some kind of official notice of withdrawal. But no, it just seems that Nick Clegg’s pronouncement on his local radio was enough to kill it. So it was gone. And with it the reported GB pound 405 million of taxpayer’s money that had apparently been spent to date on it. Now that’s not to be sniffed at. What could be done with GB pound 405 million in these days of austerity?
Click here to view Figure 1.
This is an ex-parrot!
So straight after IFSEC I was going to start off my article reflecting on the bill along the lines of the Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch. But having left it for a while we now see that the dead parrot is not in fact dead. Whether it is alive and well is another matter, but at the moment there still seems to be a bit of life left in it. But what I can’t figure out is why all this is happening.
Surely for the bill to have got to this stage there should have been a great deal of discussion on the reasons for it, any alternatives, and how important taking action is. Perhaps there was? And then along comes one man and it’s gone — until an unthinkable tragedy happens in broad daylight in the streets of London and it is immediately seen to be an opportunity to rekindle the bill. But at that point there is raw emotion, which is never the best thing when making big decisions.
With CCTV, when we use it we need to decide that it is definitely necessary and specifically agree on the reasons for it. The same goes for this bill.
With CCTV, we should look at all the alternatives that could possibly be used instead of rushing immediately to use it as an all-encompassing magic wand. Same as for this bill where there is a rush to what the public would suggest is to snoop on people.
With CCTV, we need to look at how important the issue is and consider the consequences and the public perception. Same as this bill.
With CCTV, though, my first point is the most important, and that’s transparency. We need to let people know that CCTV is being used — in fact we actually need to get people’s permission to capture their images and let them know that there is CCTV. We don’t hide the fact. We also let them know why it is being used, and then they know what it can and what it can’t be used for.
Now I’m not a politician and by no means telling those whom we pay for that responsibility how to do their jobs. But had they followed just some of the basic principles of what should be done with CCTV with how they came to where they are with this bill then I think we might all be a bit happier.
How is your data being managed?
If there is a real and genuine reason for this bill then let us all see it and appreciate it. Let’s take away some of the party politics and look at the good of the country. The security of the country. The safety of the country. And let’s have enough information to be able to see what can and cannot be done with the data/information/images collected.
Data — as many, many organizations have said on numerous occasions — is their most important asset. We, the public, need to know what happens to the data collected and be totally confident in what it will be used for. It is not the government’s data. It is not the company’s data. It is our data, and we need to know — just like CCTV — that it is being managed correctly and legally and that, in giving our permission, there are correct and legal procedures and practices in place for us to have total confidence.
Now that’s all good stuff and commendable. My problem now, though, is that the great majority of CCTV systems — public and private — do not do all these things. They don’t comply with the Data Protection Act or give full confidence to the public. That is a really sad state of affairs, and it also means a hugely false feeling of protection for the public.
Where are we going to be when court cases involving CCTV are regularly dismissed because the CCTV system which had produced the clear and precise evidence was actually operated illegally? What then the effect on the public confidence? Or the police reliance on CCTV? Or the CCTV users’ relationship with providers and installers? Or the insurance companies that are facing claims for incorrect use of the CCTV?
So the bill? Well, I watched Mr. Clegg at Prime Minister’s Questions last week, and he kept making a side-to-side motion with his hand mouthing to the opposition the words “flip flop”. Ironically, that seems a reasonable description for the current state of play on this bill from the coalition government in Westminster. Seriously, how sad is that in describing what could be such an important piece of legislation?
Data Protection Act and CCTV
And the CCTV? Well that’s pretty straightforward. We don’t need new bills or new codes of practices or new commissioners dealing with what amounts to about 4 percent of the CCTV population. We have the law already. We have the Information Commissioner’s CCTV Code of Practice. Have had it for well over a decade now, would you believe. We have the opportunity to change the public perception of CCTV. We have the opportunity to make a difference. We all need to take responsibility now.
All CCTV systems which capture members of the public who can be recognized must be operated and managed under the Data Protection Act because the images captured are deemed to be data, just the same as any other personal data. So we up the standards. We make sure we are doing what needs to be done under the Act — what should have been done since 2001 — and that will help to remove the suspicions people have of CCTV.
So a challenge to all of us: Let’s get the CCTV sorted before any major issues happen — and it is just a matter of time before it happens. The clock really is ticking on this. The compliance with DPA of CCTV systems should be checked at least annually by experts in the field of CCTV data protection compliance.
I suggest that we move past the uncertainty on both the bill and the legality of CCTV, as a matter of urgency.
Related posts:
Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023
Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!
Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.
